Exploration Into Insight

Exploration Into Insight 'Registration, the Movement of Millennia'

P: Krishnaji, you have spoken about holding the quality of anger, fear or any strong emotion, without the word, in consciousness. Could we probe into that? The wiping away, whether it is a hurt, fear, anger or any one of the darknesses within one, is only possible if what you are talking about takes place. Can we come to that passion of feeling, which goes behind all these words of fear, anger, etc? Can that be held in consciousness?

K: What does it mean to hold the feeling of anger, whatever `is', without the word? Is this possible?

P: And is there anything without the word?

K: Go on.

FW: Is there fear when there is not the word `fear'? And what is the nature of the energy in the body or in the whole being if there is no naming?

A: Clarity for us means naming. When we want to probe into a strong feeling, a disturbance, we want to know precisely what it is, we don't want any self-deception. Invariably, before we have been able to grasp it completely, we have named it. So, naming is both our instrument of clarity and the cause of confusion.

K: Is the word different from the fact, from `what is'? Is the word `door' different from the door? The word `door' is not the actuality. So, the word is not the thing.

S: The question arises, then, can one ever indicate the actuality?

K: We are going to find out. We are going into it slowly.

R: Is there a difference between the statements, `the word "door" is not the door' and ` "Fear" is not fear'? The two things seem to be different.

K: The word `door' is not the actuality. The name `K' is not the actuality; the form is not the actuality. So, the word is not the thing. The `door', the word, is different from the actuality. We are trying to find out if the word `fear' is different from the actuality. Does the actuality represent the word and without the word is there the actuality?

S: What is the feeling of fear without the word?

K: Let us go very very slowly. I want to make this perfectly clear to myself. There is the word `fear', now is the word `fear' different from the actuality, the emotion, the feeling of fear and without the word is there that feeling?

R: Word is thought.

K: So, the word is the medium through which thought expresses itself. Without the word, can thought express itself? Of course it can; a gesture, a look, a nod of the head, and so on. Without the word, thought can express itself to a very very limited extent. When you want to express something very complicated in thought, the word is necessary. But the word is not the actual thought, the actual state.

A: I raise one difficulty: we perceive with the senses. That process ends when there is naming. That starts the tertiary process. With the naming, a number of complicated things begin in my brain. Now, I see this and wipe out the word, the name. When I have wiped out the name, I have not wiped out the feeling.

K: I am not quite sure, Achyutji. Pupulji is asking, what is the quality of the mind that without the word can hold that feeling without any movement, right?

R: But we are questioning whether the feeling arises without the word?

K: That is all. P: If I may say so, there are many things in consciousness which arise prior to the word.

Rad: Primordial fear; but can it be sustained without the word?

P: I am not talking about sustaining. But there are various things, tenderness, joy for instance.

K: Can you observe something without the word? Can you observe me, the form, for the moment without the word?

P: Yes.

K: You can. Now, you are already observing the form, you have removed the word `K' and you are observing the form.

P: We are observing. I don't say we are observing the form.

K: Then, what are you observing?

P: You see, sir, the moment you say 'I am observing the form', there has to be naming.

K: There has to be a name.

P: There has to be naming.

K: No.

P: Please listen, sir, when I say there is just observing, then the form is part of the whole observing field. I am observing, not only you, I am observing.

K: I said, remove the word `K', and observe the form. That is all. Of course, you are observing. I am limiting it to just the form. Are you observing the form?

P: Yes. I am observing the form.

K: What are you trying to get at?

P: I am trying to see whether the word is prior to that.

K: Pupul, let us keep simple. There is fear. I want to find out whether the word has created that fear. The word is the recogni- tion of that thing which I have called fear, because that fear has gone on for many years, and I have recognized it through the word. Ten years ago I was afraid, that fear is registered in my brain with the word. With the word is associated fear. It occurs again today and immediately the recognizing process sets in, which is the word, and so on. So, the word gives me a feeling that I have had before. The word encourages the feeling, has stabilized the feeling.

R: Yes. Sustains it.

K: It holds it. The word holds the thing by recognizing it, by remembering it and so on. Now, I am asking whether without the word there can be fear. The word is a process of recognition. Fritz, look at it. You are afraid. How do you know you are afraid?

FW: By naming it.

K: Now, how do you know it?

FW: I have been afraid before, so I know that feeling. So, as it comes again, I recognize it.

K: If you recognize it, it is a verbal process; if you don't recognize it, what is the state?

FW: There is no fear. There is energy in the body.

K: No, sir. Don't use the word `energy' because we will go into something else. There is fear. I have recognized it by naming it. In naming it, I have put it into a category and the brain remembers it, registers it, holds it. If there is no recognition, no verbal movement, would there be fear? P: There is disturbance.

K: I am using the word `fear'. Stick to fear.

P: If I may say so, fear is not such a simple thing that you can say, if there is no naming of it, fear is not...

K: I don't say that, yet. Of course, there is a lot of complexity involved in it. P: It is a tremendous thing.

S: Psychologically something happens even before naming takes place.

P: There are profoundly deep fears.

S: If we accept only this position that the word creates fear, that means there is no content to fear at all.

K: I don't say that. There is a process of recognition. If that process of recognition didn't exist, if that is at all possible, then, what is fear? I am not saying it doesn't exist. I am asking a question. If there is no process of registration, recording, which is memory in operation, what is the thing called fear?

P: Remove the word `fear', and see what remains. Any word I use is going to apply exactly as much as the word `fear'.

K: I am attacking it quite differently. You insult me because I have an image. There is an immediate registration taking place. I am asking: Can that registration come to an end when you insult me and so there is no recording at all?

S: I don't understand this. That is a totally different process.

K: It is exactly the same thing. Fear arises because I am afraid of the past. The past is registered and that incident in the past awakens the sense of fear. That fear has been registered. Is it possible to observe the new feeling, whatever it is, without bringing the past into action? Have you got it?

Rad: There is a feeling of recognition before you actually call it fear.

Rad: I register it when I recognize it initially. That itself creates a momentum.

K: Therefore, stop that momentum. Can that momentum be stopped? Look Radhika, let us put it much more simply. You are hurt. Aren't you? You are hurt from childhood for various reasons and it has been deeply registered in the mind, in the brain. The instinctive reaction is not to be hurt any more. So, you build a wall, withdraw. Now, without building the wall, can you know that you are hurt, can you be aware of it and the next time a process of hurt begins, not register it?

FW: What do you mean by registering?

K: Our brain is a tape recorder. It is registering all the time, there is like and dislike, pleasure and pain. It is moving, moving. I say something ugly to you and the brain immediately takes charge, registers it. Now, I say: `Can you stop that registration, though it has registered? And next time if there is any insult, do not register it at all.' You understand what I am talking about? First, see the question. Is the question clear?

FW: That means not to form any image of it right away.

K: No, no. Just don't introduce the image for the moment. That becomes yet more complex. Can you recognize the word but not register it? I want to keep it very very simple. First, see this. The brain is registering all the time. You call me a fool, that is registered for various reasons. That is a fact. The next question is: Can that registration stop? Otherwise the mind, the brain, has no sense of freedom.

P: The brain is a live thing. It has to register. Registration is one thing, but the cutting of the momentum is the movement away from registration.

K: That is what I am talking about.

S: Aren't you speaking of two things: one is the stopping of the momentum and the other stopping registration altogether.

K: First, get what I am talking about. Then you can question. Then you can make it clear.

P: When you say do not register, does that mean the brain cells come to a stop? K: Look, Pupulji, it is very important because if there is no possibility of stopping registration, then the brain becomes mechanical.

A: I want to question this, because you are oversimplifying the matter. Actually, our state of receiving anything is without our knowing that there is either a preference or an aversion, and fear is in that cycle. It arises from the past, and is not directly related to what I perceive. But it is that which perceives.

K: As long as the brain is registering all the time, it is moving from knowledge to knowledge. Now, I am challenging the word. I see knowledge is limited, fragmented and so on and I am asking myself whether registration can stop.

GM: Can the brain answer that question?

K: I think it can, in the sense the brain can become aware of its own registering process.

P: There are certain fears which you can deal with in that way. But fear has been the cry of man for millennia. And you are that cry.

K: I know. Stop. That cry of millennia is fear. The brain has been registering for millennia. Therefore, registering has become part of it. The brain has become mechanical. I say: Can that mechanical process stop? That is all. If it cannot be stopped it becomes merely a machine, which it is. This is all part of tradition, part of repetition, part of the constant registration through millennia. I am asking a simple question which has great depth to it, which is: Can it stop? If it cannot stop, man is never free.

Par: May I ask you a question? Why do we register at all?

K: For safety, security, protection, certainty. The registration is to give the brain a certain sense of security.

P: Isn't the brain itself involved? It has evolved through registration.

K: It has evolved through knowledge, which is registration. P: What is it from within itself which says `stop'?

K: Somebody challenges me.

P: What is the factor which makes you say `stop'?

K: Someone comes along and says: Look, through millennia man has evolved through knowledge and at present you are certainly different from the great apes. And he says: Look, as long as you are registering, you are living a fragmentary life because knowledge is fragmentary and whatever you do from that fragmentary state of brain is incomplete. Therefore, there is pain, suffering. So, we are asking at the end of that explanation, can that registration, can that movement of the past, end? Listen. I am making it simple. Can this movement of millennia stop?

P: I am asking you this question: Is there something in the very quality of listening?

K: Yes, there is. That's it.

P: And that listening ends, silences this registration.

K: That is it. That is my point. You have come into my life by chance. You have come into my life and you have pointed out to me that my brain has evolved through knowledge, through registration, through experience; and that knowledge, that experience is fundamentally limited. And whatever action takes place from that limited state will be fragmentary and therefore there will be conflict, pain. Find out if that momentum which has tremendous volume, depth, can end. You know it is a tremendous flow of energy which is knowledge. Stop that knowledge. That is all.

FW: May I ask you a question? Much reference has been made to the tape-recorder which just goes on registering, and it can't stop itself. It has to be stopped. But then, can the brain stop itself?

K: We are going to find out. First, face the question, that is my point. First, listen to the question.

S: Is the whole of my consciousness only registration? In the whole of my consciousness, is there only registration going on? K: Of course.

S: Then, what is it that can observe that registering?

K: What is it that can observe this registering or can prevent registering? I also know silence, - the silence that is between two noises...

S: Is the silence which I experience also registered?

K: Obviously.

S: You can't use the word `registering' for silence.

K: As long as there is this registration process going on, it is mechanical. Is there silence which is non-mechanistic? A silence which has not been thought about, induced, brought about or invented. Otherwise, the silence is merely mechanistic.

S: But one knows the non-mechanistic silence sometimes.

K: Not sometimes.

Raj: Sir, is it possible for a non-mechanistic silence to come?

K: No, no. I am not interested in that. I am asking something entirely different: this momentum, this conditioning, the whole o consciousness is the past. It is moving. There is no future consciousness. The whole consciousness is the past, registered, remembered, stored up as experience, knowledge, fear, pleasure. That is the whole momentum of the past. And somebody comes along and says: Listen to what I have to say, can you end that momentum? Otherwise this momentum, with its fragmentary activity, will go on endlessly.

Raj: I think this movement can be stopped only if you don't hang on to it.

K: No, the momentum is you. You are not different from the momentum. You don't recognize that you are this vast momentum, this river of tradition, of racial prejudices, the collective drive, the so-called individual assertions. If there is no stopping that, there is no future. So, there is no future if this current is going on You may call it a future, but it is only the same thing modified. There is no future. I wonder if you see this.

P: An action takes place and darkness arises in me. The question arises: Can consciousness with its own content, which is darkness -

K: End. Hold it.

P: What do you mean exactly?

K: Can you hold, can the brain hold this momentum, or is it an idea that it is momentum? You follow what I mean? Listen to it carefully. Is the momentum actual or is it an idea? If it is an idea, then you can hold the idea about the momentum. But, if it is not an idea, a conclusion, then the brain is directly in contact with the momentum. I wonder if you follow. And therefore, it can say: `All right, I will watch.' It is watching, it is not allowing it to move. Now, is it the word you are holding on to, or are you observing this vast movement? Look, you are the vast movement. When you say you are that vast movement, is it an idea?

Raj: No.

K: Therefore, you are that. Find out if that thing can end - the past coming, meeting the present, a challenge, a question and ending there. Otherwise, there is no end to suffering. Man has put up with suffering for thousands upon thousands of years. That momentum is going on and on. I can give ten explanations - reincarnation, karma - but I still suffer. This suffering is the vast momentum of man. Can that momentum come to an end without control? The controller is the controlled. Can that momentum stop? If it does not stop, then there is no freedom, then action will always be incomplete. Can you see the whole of that, see it actually?

P: Can we ever see that? When we see feeling in the present, what is it we are seeing?

K: I call you a fool. Must you register it?

P: I can't just answer why should I register. K: Don't register.

P: It is a question of whether these eyes and ears of mine are flowing out to the word; if they are still and listen, there is no registration. There is listening but no registration.

K: So, what are you seeing?

P: There is no seeing of this movement. I have been observing while this discussion has been going on and I say: What does it mean to register the fact? I am listening, you are listening. Obviously, if my listening is directed to the word, which is coming out of me, I register, and this very movement outward throws it back. But if the eyes and the ears are seeing and listening, but still, then they take in without any registration.

K: So, you are saying that there is a quietness in listening. There is no registration, but most of us are not quiet.

P: We can't answer that question of yours: Why should one register?

K: No. I am asking quite a different question. Someone calls you a fool. Don't register it at all.

P: It is not a process in which I can register or I can't register. The way you put it, you are suggesting two alternatives: it is either to register or not to register.

K: No. You are registering all the time.

P: There is a registration all the time. So long as my senses are moving outward, there is registration.

K: No; when you say `as long as', that means you are not now.

P: No. I am giving an explanation.

K: I want to find out whether this vast stream of the past can come to an end. That is all my question.

P: You won't accept anything. You won't accept any final statement on it. Therefore, there has to be a way to end. K: I am asking: How can it end?

P: So, we have to move from that to the brain cells - to the actual registration.

K: So, the brain cells are registering. Those brain cells which are so heavily conditioned, have realized that momentum is the only safety. So, in that momentum, the brain has found tremendous security. Right? P: Please listen to me. There is only one movement which is the movement of the past, touching the present and moving on.

K: The past meeting the present, moving on, modifying - we have gone into that. The brain is conditioned to that. It sees as long as that stream exists, it is perfectly safe. Now, how are those cells to be shown that the momentum of the past in which the brain cells have found enormous security and well-being is the most dangerous movement? Now, to point out to that brain the danger of this momentum is all that matters. The moment it sees the actual danger, it will end it. Do you see the danger of this movement? Not the theoretical danger, but the actual physical danger?

P: Are your brain cells saying that this movement is dangerous?

K: My brain is using the words to inform you of the danger, but it has no danger in it. It has seen it and dropped it. Do you see the danger of a cobra? When you see the danger, you avoid it. You avoid it because you have been conditioned through millennia to the danger of a snake. So, your responses are according to the conditioning, which is instant action.

The brain has been conditioned to carry on because in that there is complete safety, in meeting the present, learning from it, modifying it and moving on. To the brain, that is the only safe movement it knows, so it is going to remain there. But the moment the brain realizes that it is the most dangerous thing, it drops it because it wants security.

Raj: I don't see the danger of the momentum as actually as you see it. K: Why, sir?

Raj: Partly because I have never observed the vast momentum to see its danger.

K: Are you living with the description of the momentum or living with the momentum itself which is you? You understand my question, sir? Is the momentum different from you?

Raj: No, sir.

K: So, you are the momentum? So, you are watching yourself?

Raj: Yes. But this does not happen often.

K: Often? The words `often' and `continuous' are awful words. Are you aware without any choice that you are the momentum, not sometimes? You can say: I only see the precipice occasionally. If the word is not the thing, then the word is not fear. Now, has the word created fear?

R: No.

K: Don't quickly answer it. Find out. Go slowly, Radhaji. The word is not the thing. That is very clear. Fear is not the word, but has the word created the fear? Without the word, would that thing called `fear' exist? The word is the registration process. Then, something totally new arises. That new, the brain refuses because it is a new thing; so, it immediately says it is fear. For the brain to hold the momentum of that, wait, watch. Give a gap between the movement of thought, without interfering with the actual movement of feeling. The gap can only happen when you go very deeply into the question that the word is not the thing, the word is not fear. Immediately, you have stopped the momentum. I wonder if you see this.

P: I still want to get the thing clear. Is it possible to hold a quality of feeling without the word, whether it is hatred, anger or fear.

K: Of course, you can hold the feeling of anger, fear, without the word; just remain with that feeling. Do it. P: But what do you do exactly?

K: When fear arises from whatever cause, remain with it, without any momentum, without any movement of thought.

P: What is it then?

K: It is no longer the thing which I have associated with the past as fear. I would say it is energy held without any movement. When energy is held without any movement, there is an explosion. That then gets transformed.